During Apple's Q1 2014 (the quarter ending December 2013), the company reported an additional $525 million in cash "payments made in connection with business acquisitions" in its quarterly 10Q filings. That was significantly more than the $496 million it had spent over the previous four quarters combined.

Since the start of calendar 2014, Apple was also reported to have acquired SnappyLabs and Burstly. All together, that makes just 14 companies that Apple is known (or believed) to have acquired over the past five quarters.

Apple's secretive acquisition strategy

Cooks' allusion to "23 companies over 16 months" was made two months into the second fiscal quarter of 2014, and the actual acquisition dates of some companies are not known with precision, making it difficult to pin down exactly which acquisitions Cook was including in his numbers. However, by any measure Apple has managed to buy up at least nine more companies than the investigative and curious media (including AppleInsider) has been able to identify.

Cook made it clear in his comments to shareholders that Apple was not seeking to make the greatest number of acquisitions (or to pay the most money for them), but rather to make smart, strategic purchases whenever the circumstances arose.

Unlike Yahoo, Microsoft, Google and Facebook, Apple rarely ever announces that it has acquired anything. Instead, it typically only selectively acknowledges acquisitions after they've been reported, regularly issuing the boilerplate statement, "Apple buys smaller technology companies from time to time, and we generally do not discuss our purpose or plans."It's no secret that the identity of the companies Apple acquires often makes it apparent why the company bought them.

It's no secret that the identity of the companies Apple acquires often makes it apparent why the company bought them. Previous acquisitions ranging from Siri to LaLa (iTunes Radio) to AuthenTec (Touch ID) helped illuminate what Apple was working to deliver many months in advance.

The fact that a third of Apple's known, recent acquisitions involve maps and transit, for example, makes it obvious that Apple isn't giving up on Maps but rather has ambitious, aggressive plans to keep its offerings competitive with (or superior to) the rival offerings from Google and Nokia.

Cook highlighted Apple's legendary secrecy as being extremely valuable to the company, and it's easy to see why. In addition to the excitement around new products that helps to drive sales, Apple's secrecy also helps to delay the efforts by competitors to copy its products, or to remain credible when claiming that they too were working on the same technologies.

For example, while Microsoft virtually derailed Apple's QuickTime by claiming to have its own suite of video editing tools in development in the mid 1990s ("ActiveMovie" products that ended up being never-released vaporware), Samsung's claim to have a 64-bit phone with a fingerprint scanner under development hasn't had a credible impact on Apple's iPhone 5s sales.

In addition, Apple seeks to keep access to unreleased software within its iOS and OS X developer programs confidential, not to keep secrets from Microsoft and Samsung (both of which have full access to Apple's developer software), but in part to avoid frustrating or disappointing users when planned features end up being delayed or canceled due to unavoidable issues ranging from development timelines to outside patent claims to difficulties in obtaining support for new features from third parties, such as the music rights holders required to make iTunes Radio a success at launch.

Apple's secrecy also aims to avoid distracting its current customers with future products. For example, it's unlikely that the company could have reached $1 billion in Apple TV sales last year if it had been openly floating plans about future living room product concepts that weren't yet ready for sale.

A subsequent article details how Apple actually outspent Google during 2013 to satiate its voracious appetite to acquire talent, technology and production capacity.

Google, Amazon, and to some degree Facebook have become masters at publicizing their tinkering with future, often fanciful gadgets and tech developments, just to promulgate the fantasy that they are truly THE leaders in innovations. Apple will much more likely be the company that actually delivers true, useful, tangible advancements as opposed to these PR factories.

Google, Amazon, and to some degree Facebook have become masters at publicizing their tinkering with future, often fanciful gadgets and tech developments, just to promulgate the fantasy that they are truly THE leaders in innovations. Apple will much more likely be the company that actually delivers true, useful, tangible advancements as opposed to these PR factories.

Are you actually denying that Google is an innovative company? Google and Apple are both innovative companies in their own right and to state that Apple is the only "company that actually delivers true, useful, tangible advancements as opposed to these PR factories" is just pure nonsense. And Apple is one giant PR factory (among the largest out there) when they release something. At this moment in time it can be argued that Google is actually the more innovative company of the two with Apple sticking to their already established products and gradually evolving while Google is thinking out of the box.Edited by Chipsy - 3/1/14 at 3:23pm

Dude, google is totally innovative. Ok, so first they invented internet search. Then after that, free gmail, you cannot take that away from them. Youtube, definitely an innovation for google to have bought Youtube. google plus, with innovative circles for sharing and emailing your friends, another win. Plus we know they have got cameras on tricycles on college campuses to make maps even where people walk, plus driverless cars and google glasses. Even though these are not products they are even more innovative than all the other things. Don't diss the goog, dudes!

@chipsy. I agree that all these companies are aggressively working on a lot of great innovations. I am just saying that Google and Amazon play the free publicity card to the hilt (as opposed to Apple), to feather their "innovation-star" perceptions in the minds of the public and Wall Street, irrespective of criticism as to the feasibility or actual utility of the projects in question. Naturally the tech press is constantly looking for sexy, headline grabbing stories about fanciful, if not superficial new projects, so these companies have learned how to fill the news vacuum. For example, look at the timing of Jeff Bezos' talking about future drone package delivery on 60 minutes, four days before Black Friday. Great (accidental? hehe) timing for mountains of free publicity! Apple's approach is different as they prefer to work and acquire in secrecy. But the market perceives all this as somehow Apple's being bereft of new ideas, especially since the death of Steve Jobs. But as SJ said himself, it is not good form to have a ship that leaks from the top.

Dude, google is totally innovative. Ok, so first they invented internet search. Then after that, free gmail, you cannot take that away from them. Youtube, definitely an innovation for google to have bought Youtube. google plus, with innovative circles for sharing and emailing your friends, another win. Plus we know they have got cameras on tricycles on college campuses to make maps even where people walk, plus driverless cars and google glasses. Even though these are not products they are even more innovative than all the other things. Don't diss the goog, dudes!

I'm not so sure about Google being innovative. Certainly they have made their money, and continue to do so on advertising embedded in search, maps most definitely, and high speed internet backbones in major cities (so they can easily scrape user content as it goes through their network infrastructure). But, in many ways, they remind me of Xerox, who did not and could not productize the ideas of their skunkworks group PARC, leaving the ideas to Apple and others to deliver on.

"Dude, google is totally innovative. Ok, so first they invented internet search. Then after that, free gmail, you cannot take that away from them."-dogcowabunga

Sorry dogcowabunga, Google did not invent internet searching Alta Vista was the leader long before then. Also Hotmail as a private company started in 1996 where as Google's Gmail in 2004 as a private invitation only beta. I agree Google has it's hands into hindreds of tech projects but how many come to fruition? How many last more than 2-3 years before the beta status is cancelled along with the project. Google is not and probably never will be a product company like Apple. Google sells services and advertising. Everything else is just a new wrapper for that...

Google, Amazon, and to some degree Facebook have become masters at publicizing their tinkering with future, often fanciful gadgets and tech developments, just to promulgate the fantasy that they are truly THE leaders in innovations. Apple will much more likely be the company that actually delivers true, useful, tangible advancements as opposed to these PR factories.

Are you actually denying that Google is an innovative company? Google and Apple are both innovative companies in their own right and to state that Apple is the only "company that actually delivers true, useful, tangible advancements as opposed to these PR factories" is just pure nonsense. And Apple is one giant PR factory (among the largest out there) when they release something. At this moment in time it can be argued that Google is actually the more innovative company of the two with Apple sticking to their already established products and gradually evolving while Google is thinking out of the box.

Dude, google is totally innovative. Ok, so first they invented internet search. Then after that, free gmail, you cannot take that away from them. Youtube, definitely an innovation for google to have bought Youtube. google plus, with innovative circles for sharing and emailing your friends, another win. Plus we know they have got cameras on tricycles on college campuses to make maps even where people walk, plus driverless cars and google glasses. Even though these are not products they are even more innovative than all the other things. Don't diss the goog, dudes!

I'm not so sure about Google being innovative. Certainly they have made their money, and continue to do so on advertising embedded in search, maps most definitely, and high speed internet backbones in major cities (so they can easily scrape user content as it goes through their network infrastructure). But, in many ways, they remind me of Xerox, who did not and could not productize the ideas of their skunkworks group PARC, leaving the ideas to Apple and others to deliver on.

Are you actually denying that Google is an innovative company? Google and Apple are both innovative companies in their own right and to state that Apple is the only "company that actually delivers true, useful, tangible advancements as opposed to these PR factories" is just pure nonsense. And Apple is one giant PR factory (among the largest out there) when they release something. At this moment in time it can be argued that Google is actually the more innovative company of the two with Apple sticking to their already established products and gradually evolving while Google is thinking out of the box.

Google hasn't had any true success with any of their innovations outside of search. Every one of their products prop up their advertising business, and that includes Android. Android wasn't a leading innovation...heck, they scrapped their original plans for it once the iPhone came out and followed Apple's footsteps. I'm not talking about some features that Apple and Google copied from each other, but the underlying theory of what a mobile OS should be. That is where the innovation was, and Google was the follower. Furthermore, Android's success stemmed from Microsoft's incompetence and the fact that it was free. Microsoft actually did something unique with Windows Phone, they just did it too late.

Google spends more money on generating ad revenue (i.e., they pay Apple and others to have Google be the default and per search) than they do on R&D, and every year those acquisition costs go higher and per click revenue goes down. Sure, Google is more forthcoming regarding their experiments and acquisitions, but you can't measure innovation with what you cook up in your R&D labs and put out in a press release.

Having said all that, Google has been working on branching out of their roots, and we'll see where that leads them, but just because you can't see Apple's stuff in the labs, doesn't mean they aren't innovating.

If that response was meant for me how about these: Project Ara, Project Loon, Google's Glucose Lens,...

No no. I want actual finished products.

I mean, seriously… You're not suggesting that Apple doesn't have any projects of the type you are sighting, are you? That would be laughable. Everybody knows that Apple keeps everything they work on under top secret. THAT is the difference.

Google hasn't had any true success with any of their innovations outside of search. Every one of their products prop up their advertising business, and that includes Android. Android wasn't a leading innovation...heck, they scrapped their original plans for it once the iPhone came out and followed Apple's footsteps. I'm not talking about some features that Apple and Google copied from each other, but the underlying theory of what a mobile OS should be. That is where the innovation was, and Google was the follower. Furthermore, Android's success stemmed from Microsoft's incompetence and the fact that it was free. Microsoft actually did something unique with Windows Phone, they just did it too late.

Google spends more money on generating ad revenue (i.e., they pay Apple and others to have Google be the default and per search) than they do on R&D, and every year those acquisition costs go higher and per click revenue goes down. Sure, Google is more forthcoming regarding their experiments and acquisitions, but you can't measure innovation with what you cook up in your R&D labs and put out in a press release.

Having said all that, Google has been working on branching out of their roots, and we'll see where that leads them, but just because you can't see Apple's stuff in the labs, doesn't mean they aren't innovating.

Oh nobody is stating that Android was an innovation. But I would like to correct one misunderstanding, there were actually two versions being developed a Sooner (more blackberry like and less ambitious phone/OS that would be ready sooner) and a Dreamer (a touch interface OS and smartphone). Andy Rubin's quote “Holy crap, I guess we’re not going to launch that phone.” was taken out off context as he was talking about the Sooner. Thus the iPhone definitely focused the development of Android but it's not like everything needed to be turned around.

But that aside. Your comment makes it sound as if you think something can only be an innovation if it is a financial/commercial success. I wholeheartedly disagree, many of the worlds most innovative ideas or products never became a commercial success.

Even if you don't know what the acquisitions are, you can still draw one conclusion just by the a sheer number, namely: they can't all be for one project, it's just too many.

Therefore I hope they're not doing a Google and just trying their hand at everything under the sun: TV, car, watch, medical... That's what you do when you don't have a visionary with a gut feel for what's next.

No no. I want actual finished products.
I mean, seriously… You're not suggesting that Apple doesn't have any projects of the type you are sighting, are you? That would be laughable. Everybody knows that Apple keeps everything they work on under top secret. THAT is the difference.

How about Google Now, certainly an innovation in it's own right (it won the innovation of the year award from popular science magazine), Project Ara is pretty much finished and is ready for developers to start creating modules and will be released next year, Google Street view, Google Fiber,...

But the idea that innovations need to be 100% public ready and launched to have influence is absolute bull.

Are you actually denying that Google is an innovative company? Google and Apple are both innovative companies in their own right and to state that Apple is the only "company that actually delivers true, useful, tangible advancements as opposed to these PR factories" is just pure nonsense. And Apple is one giant PR factory (among the largest out there) when they release something. At this moment in time it can be argued that Google is actually the more innovative company of the two with Apple sticking to their already established products and gradually evolving while Google is thinking out of the box.

Interesting reading comprehension issues. Taking a "most likely" to an absolute "only". Do you deny that Google and Amazon endlessly talk about future products that may never be available?

Isn't every single one of those vapor ware currently? And any company that derives 90%+ of revenues from advertising is only ever going to be so innovative.

Anyways, the way people toss the word "innovate" around has made it nearly completely meaningless.

Lol as if innovation has anything to do with your profit/revenue source. Project Ara is ready for developers and will be released next year. Google's glucose lens is ready but like any new technology it will have to undergo years of testing by the FDA before release. (Just ask Sano with their glucose patch, 1,5 years and counting with no end in sight yet).

Oh nobody is stating that Android was an innovation. But I would like to correct one misunderstanding, there were actually two versions being developed a Sooner (more blackberry like and less ambitious phone/OS that would be ready sooner) and a Dreamer (a touch interface OS and smartphone). Andy Rubin's quote “Holy crap, I guess we’re not going to launch that phone.” was taken out off context as he was talking about the Sooner. Thus the iPhone definitely focused the development of Android but it's not like everything needed to be turned around.

But that aside. Your comment makes it sound as if you think something can only be an innovation if it is a financial success. I wholeheartedly disagree, many of the worlds most innovative ideas or products never become acommercial success.

I know they had two versions in development, but that goes to my point. They were willing to rush to market with something they knew wasn't going to last them. Google wasn't pushing limits. They acted on where the market was going after the light was shown. Apple wasn't first, but they set the benchmark. It took years for Google to catch up to the innovations Apple made. As a side note; Microsoft made that mistake. Early phones released on the new Windows Phone platform were left in the dark fairly soon after their release. That experience burned developers and more importantly, their customers. It compounded all the other issues regarding being late to market and not having enough developer support.

To your point about financial success determining innovation...I don't believe that. My point was about people propping up Google and Amazon as innovators just because they are open about their plans. Fundamentally Google is an advertising company that funds a bunch of nerds geeking out. I actually look at technology in a different light. True innovation are things that have a direct impact on humanity, preferably for good. Sure Apple makes great looking and feeling products, but that isn't the only thing I admire. I admire the fact that they make it accessible for people. Apple isn't the only company that makes products that have that sort of impact, but that's besides the point. Innovation is true innovation when it impacts our lives. Google Search had that sort of impact on peoples lives. I have a hard time seeing what else Google has done that resonated and had that level of impact on normal folks. Sure, their infrastructure is astounding and should be commended. I think the stuff that makes Google tick is more innovative than the stuff we see in the public, but ultimately, they have yet to deliver a product to the masses that had the impact of their search product.

It might sound wishy washy but my mom and many others are flabbergasted by Android or Windows, and even Blackberry. The truly innovative products are the ones that humanity can grasp, in the near term or the future. Google is trying to broaden its horizon outside of search and advertising, but we have to see how well they succeed, and I don't mean financially.

Lol as if innovation has anything to do with your profit source. Project Ara is ready for developers and will be released next year. Google's glucose lens is ready but like any new technology it will have to undergo years of testing by the FDA before release. (Like Sano's glucose patch).

Actually, Om Malik who suffers from diabetes had a great post about how bad their glucose lens is for people that actually have diabetes.

Even if you don't know what the acquisitions are, you can still draw one conclusion just by the a sheer number, namely: they can't all be for one project, it's just too many.

Therefore I hope they're not doing a Google and just trying their hand at everything under the sun: TV, car, watch, medical... That's what you do when you don't have a visionary with a gut feel for what's next.

I think Apple probably has a bit more focus than that. We'll see this year if that holds true.

Lol as if innovation has anything to do with your profit source. Project Ara is ready for developers and will be released next year. Google's glucose lens is ready but like any new technology it will have to undergo years of testing by the FDA before release. (Just ask Sano with their glucose patch, 1,5 years and counting with no end in sight yet).

Again, "innovation" barely has meaning any more. But my point is Google is an advertising company. Do they have minor side projects that sometimes see the light of day (and often don't)? Sure. Big deal. I'm not seeing Google's effect on how people utilize tech on an every day basis. There's nothing that is part of their larger ecosystem that is in any way different or new. And the vast, vast, VAST majority of that larger ecosystem is selling ads anyways.

Look at it this way: Eliminate advertising revenues from Google (along with whatever they use to generate those revenues), and Google essentially disappears. OTOH, eliminate anything else they work on, and it has an almost imperceivable effect -- imperceivable on Google, and imperceivable on the public at large.

There are very simple means of inferring sarcasm without using /s to make it clear it's intent. The original poster doesn't seem to know them. Outside of the instinctual, ``this has to be bs'' tickling the stomach nothing structurally inferred any sarcastic intent.

Google is an algorithm that allowed them to monopolize search and reap mesmerising revenue. Throwing free endless mud at an endless wall is not innovation, it does impress Wall Street though ... just my 2 cents

I think Apple probably has a bit more focus than that. We'll see this year if that holds true.

I hope so. People who try to brute force creativity (by just trying everything) soon learn the hard way about Combinatorics, i.e. the sheer and unexplorable number of ways even a small number of things (such as ideas or technologies) can be combined.

I know they had two versions in development, but that goes to my point. They were willing to rush to market with something they knew wasn't going to last them. Google wasn't pushing limits. They acted on where the market was going after the light was shown. Apple wasn't first, but they set the benchmark. It took years for Google to catch up to the innovations Apple made. As a side note; Microsoft made that mistake. Early phones released on the new Windows Phone platform were left in the dark fairly soon after their release. That experience burned developers and more importantly, their customers. It compounded all the other issues regarding being late to market and not having enough developer support.

To your point about financial success determining innovation...I don't believe that. My point was about people propping up Google and Amazon as innovators just because they are open about their plans. Fundamentally Google is an advertising company that funds a bunch of nerds geeking out. I actually look at technology in a different light. True innovation are things that have a direct impact on humanity, preferably for good. Sure Apple makes great looking and feeling products, but that isn't the only thing I admire. I admire the fact that they make it accessible for people. Apple isn't the only company that makes products that have that sort of impact, but that's besides the point. Innovation is true innovation when it impacts our lives. Google Search had that sort of impact on peoples lives. I have a hard time seeing what else Google has done that resonated and had that level of impact on normal folks. Sure, their infrastructure is astounding and should be commended. I think the stuff that makes Google tick is more innovative than the stuff we see in the public, but ultimately, they have yet to deliver a product to the masses that had the impact of their search product.

It might sound wishy washy but my mom and many others are flabbergasted by Android or Windows, and even Blackberry. The truly innovative products are the ones that humanity can grasp, in the near term or the future. Google is trying to broaden its horizon outside of search and advertising, but we have to see how well they succeed, and I don't mean financially.

Our views on innovation seem to differ somewhat. As I don't necessarily think innovations need to drastically and directly impact humanity persé. But have to say I somewhat agree. Indeed we will have to see how Google broadening their horizon pans out in the end. But at least they are taking risks and don't just keep muddeling on (just do what they do).

And just for anyone chiming in late: I don't (and never have) dispute(d) that Apple is an innovative company, I'm just defending that Google is as well. Both are innovative companies in their own right.Edited by Chipsy - 3/1/14 at 5:28pm

I'm not seeing Google's effect on how people utilize tech on an every day basis. There's nothing that is part of their larger ecosystem that is in any way different or new.

Look at it this way: Eliminate advertising revenues from Google (along with whatever they use to generate those revenues), and Google essentially disappears.

I think you are projecting what you personally wish to happen for Google but it significantly underestimates their impact on the internet connected world. First, perhaps you have heard of YouTube. That is a huge part of people's daily lives. Also just plain search. Almost everyone uses Google when they need to find the facts, with no intention of clicking on any ads. It is even a verb like Photoshop. Next, I would say that many companies actually do use their advertising resources. You probably don't own a company but, people who do, depend on AdWords, Analytics and AdSense.

My favorite Google service is their Business Apps. They offer a great collection of hosted email, cloud storage, messaging, sharing and actual office apps. Our company uses it extensively. It is very affordable and full featured. I don't think any other company offers anything close to Google Business.

Not one of those is a shipping product. Thank you for proving the OP's point.

How about Google Now (innovation of the year 2012) or Google Street View an innovation in it's own right. And Google's main product the search engine, they existed before, but they revolutionized how search engines worked.Edited by Chipsy - 3/1/14 at 5:39pm

I think you are projecting what you personally wish to happen for Google but it significantly underestimates their impact on the internet connected world. First, perhaps you have heard of YouTube. That is a huge part of people's daily lives. Also just plain search. Almost everyone uses Google when they need to find the facts, with no intention of clicking on any ads. It is even a verb like Photoshop. Next, I would say that many companies actually do use their advertising resources. You probably don't own a company but, people who do, depend on AdWords, Analytics and AdSense.

My favorite Google service is their Business Apps. They offer a great collection of hosted email, cloud storage, messaging, sharing and actual office apps. Our company uses it extensively. It is very affordable and full featured. I don't think any other company offers anything close to Google Business.

1) I don't personally care what happens to Google, one way or the other. Google has no effect whatsoever on my life, positive or negative.

2) YouTube? Really? It existed for HOW long before Google bought it? Heck, I have a number of YouTube subs that predate Google's involvement by years.

3) Search. Google has managed to dominate web search, yes. But it's not as if search doesn't predate Google. Heck, I remember using Gopher on a regular basis.

Are you actually denying that Google is an innovative company? Google and Apple are both innovative companies in their own right and to state that Apple is the only "company that actually delivers true, useful, tangible advancements as opposed to these PR factories" is just pure nonsense. And Apple is one giant PR factory (among the largest out there) when they release something. At this moment in time it can be argued that Google is actually the more innovative company of the two with Apple sticking to their already established products and gradually evolving while Google is thinking out of the box.

Apple isn't a PR factory. It can't help it that its products are newsworthy. Just because Apple doesn't publish every product it's working on doesn't make them less innovative.

Fact is the driverless cars, diabetes contact lenses are neat engineering solutions but they will not be mainstream anytime soon. And don't get me started in the Glassholes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

FWIW:
There are very simple means of inferring sarcasm without using /s to make it clear it's intent. The original poster doesn't seem to know them. Outside of the instinctual, ``this has to be bs'' tickling the stomach nothing structurally inferred any sarcastic intent.

How about Google Now (innovation of the year 2012) or Google Street View an innovation in it's own right. And Google's main product the search engine, they existed before, but they revolutionized how search engines worked.